![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I created this page because Visual arts and design, which is linked from the Main Page. Links to it. I just kind if wrote it off the top of my head. There is (was? I did revision) similar material on computer generated art.
I also just added my contribution. VIVE LE WIGDOR!!! -- Keith-Wigdor 18:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I also revised this page (some time ago. There seemed , and still is some confusion between 'commercial' uses and 'artistic' endeavours in Digital Art. Who termed the phrase 'Neographers' I've never heard of it anywhere else? A lot more could be written and it could also be divided up more. The problem is whether you give a very general description or go into more depth. Obviously the more depth there is the more problematic (and critised!) it becomes. I also added some of the links. This area is still woefully inadequate. Again that worries, because once you start, there's no stopping and soon it would become a lifetimes work, to get anywhwhere near a complete picture of the diversity of work that is being created! Still maybe one day... keith watson
PS. I really don't think there should be any reference to music, that's a whole nother area. of course there is Sound Art, but I think the term 'Digital art' encompasses visual work only. what do you think? Would it upset anyone to delete this bit! keith watson
Hi, You're right times have moved on, this whole description is too simplistic and needs a much more academmic approach to defining 'Digital Art'. The basic 'art created by computer (or other digital devises)' is still correct though, its just that the movement has grown as you describe, and much of it is defined now by 'New Media'.
keith watson
Could we consider that 'digital' is equivalent to 'silver' used in photography? Then from there, digital being a state by which an image or a creation wil go through before being definitely transposed onto or into a physical medium such as CRT/LCD photo paper printed with a digita printer, ceramic, glass or whatever the medium. In such a perspective, digital becomes a form of 'sensor' like in a digital camera, whose only purpose is to capture information and pass it on to the next step. Yves Bodson January 25th, 2007
I'm thinking of removing the whole "External links" section, as it's turning into a big link farm, and I don't see any real standard for what it should include, and what's just a self-promotional link. Any objections? Tverbeek 11:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I think its online terrorism to take away links that someone has put here a good reason. Anybody adding links must have a feeling that they are doing so for the good of the site, not necessarily as self promotion. For instance I run Deluxe-arts which still an organisation which used to run deluxe gallery, which was an important gallery for new media/ digitla art in the UK and still an important site for anyone interested in this area. I also see someone has taken a lot of other links out which I believe are VERY important. I don't believe it is up to someone else to decide what they think is or isn't relevant, because it isn't going to be the same view as anyone else.
So if someone adds links, which are relevant they should be left in place, or ask the person who placed them BEFORE you delete it.
When I get time I will be re-adding the links that someone has taken away, because I and many people would consider them relevant.
i can see I'm gonna have to keep an eye on you guys! keith watson
If anyone can find one or two samples of digital art by notable artists to replace current samples, that will be appreciated. I could not find any in Wikipedia images or in commons so far. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, may be you try the MODA Museum guest section. Of course in your opinion these might be not notable digital artists. You are the king at Wikipedia. You decide. Artingrid 13:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am a peaceful human being but nevertheless hate injustice. Yes, you are one editor among thousands but you are the one threatening. Don't worry. I will not talk to you anymore if you do not attack me. Artingrid 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It hasnt been an esay task for me to promote and fight for Digital art or what I consider to be artistic creations generated by a computer. I created MODA Museum of Digital art Beacuse I felt every artist has a right to show their work so everyone can enjoy or hate it. This isn't the case with other digital art museums that are excesively selective and that's fine too but I still think everyone should be consider and respected as an artist if they're serious about their work so there is a space for all digital artists at MODA and that's something we're always be proud of. What Ingrid and Dr Chang have done to unite the digital art community and to promote their work through different projects is an admirable effort and I truly think they deserve everyone's respect, specially if we consider that digital art still finds closed doors in Physical museums and galleries. There is still a lot we can all do to fight for digital art recognition and I don't think it is a good idea to be against each other, we should all be together in this adventure.Mariano Petit de Murat. MODA site: MODA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.138.64.213 ( talk • contribs) .
Facts regarding the decision making about who is reaching notability to be included in Wikipedia: YOU ALONE DECIDED. And your are not a notable artist in your own words. And may be you are not in a position to decide who is a notable artist. Any expertise? In Wikipedia guidelines it is stated that the admin who puts an article to AfD is not the one who decides if it finally will be deleted. This should be decided by another admin who carefully watches the deletion debate and then decides. This "decider" was a 15 year old kid what speaks for itself. And everybody may look up the so-called deletion debate to find out what was really going on. Besides you and the 15 year old there were only 3 more folks who ever saw this debate. And those were folks without any knowledge about art or digital art. Only one of them tried to be constructive. It's absurd. You should be careful that not too many folks find out what happened here. I would love to make this more publically available. The world should know what is going on here! Crazy. THANK GOD YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DECIDE. AND YOUR SO-CALLED DECISION IS OBSCURE AND WORTHLESS. Moreover in this deletion debate you ignored worthy comments because you just didn't like them. Wikipedia is an open-source and states also folks outsite Wikipedia should not be ignored. But I am tired now. Who is Jossi? Only Wikipedia should be interested who he is because he makes Wikipedia indeed look bad. No wonder there are so many bad newspaper reports. Artingrid 10:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
hi, 'Jossi'
Could you clarify who you are? You say: I have no more power than any other editor and I cannot abuse my powers as an admninstrator. You have as many rights as I do with the exception of admin privileges that are basically the ability to protect an article and to temporarily block users that engage in vandalism or that otherwise disrupt Wikipedia.
so are you an official of Wikipedia?
I will be pairing down the long list of external links, for this reason. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Right. Wikipedia is not a web directory. It is a Jossi web directory. It will only keep the links Jossi the admin will allow and that is for sure not the link to cyberart pioneer Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya) because Jossi doesn't like high class competition. For this watch this history of this article. Artingrid 12:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
And btw the MODA is the Museum website of my friend and great artist Mariano Petit de Murat, Mexico City/Mexico who is a Webist. Artingrid 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, you are above notability. Artingrid 09:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am awfully sorry but what you tell above cannot be left alone. I do not have clients as you call it and I never made an attempt to add an external link to a personal website of a person I represent. I only represent myself. And the link I added is a link to an acknoledged source to digital art in the whole wide web. You may ask Google. But please let us stop this fruitless talk now. Thank you. Artingrid 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
So what? You are mixing things. Artingrid 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
As I said I only represent myself. When I put the link to Dr. Chang's website here it is because "Truly Virtual Web Art Museum" of Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya) is a worldwide acknowledged source for digital art not matter where and what and by whom Dr. Chang's art is sold. Every artist sells art. That is not the point here. But you can start talking to yourself now. My time indeed is too precious to spend my life talking to someone who acts like God at Wikipedia. Artingrid 10:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added another image. It's my own, so there shouldn't be any problems. escapologist File:Exquisite-kate.png 13:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it right to include applied arts such as illustration and design involving digital technologies in this article? I'm not sure if we can make use of separate terms such as Digital Art (designating digital Fine Art) and Digital arts (designating all arts where at some point some digital technology was used). Now the article looks too general to me: It includes on one hand commercial illustrators, photographers, designers whom I would call 'contemporary craftsmen', on the other hand avant-garde artists working on digital media. The latter (e.g. software artists, internet artists) were included in 'Other' and 'See Also' sections although IMO they are supposed to be the main focus of this article.-- spAs 12:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with Spas. This article is confusing and doesn't meet the theme. There should be two articles: "Applied Digital Arts" and "Digital Fine Arts". Artingrid 08:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think, splitting the article that way could also ease the problem of huge number of links that seem to be out of control. Any other suggestions on naming or any arguments against splitting? An alternative way of organization could be similar to the one in Christiane Paul's book "Digital Art". She organized two chapters in her book as follows:
The following articles overlap:
I realize that "digital art" and "computer art" have technically different meanings, but in practice they almost always refer to the same thing, and they're resulting in similar articles. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. They need to be merged into one article, either digital art or computer art or similar. Computer-generated art can be confusing.
Note the existence of these more specific articles:
I agree articles should be merged, if you can do it! Keith Watson 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Moreover: May be it would be better to not show example images.... or let it be samples of the true pioneers.
I've said previously the articles can't be represented by a few images, this is just being vain by the people inserting them. If there are to be images they should be ones which have been recognised as representative of the genre. But this will also cause problems as the most important images would need approval from the artist, or let them do it themselves. It seems most important 'digital artists' don't bother with this site. Keith Watson 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
My definition- Digital Art is an art genre that encompasses artworks created with new media technologies, these may include computer based technologies but can also be representative or generated through any new media format and then aesthetically relates it to popular culture.
Yvesbodson 19:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)==Ease of locating desired information==
The focus here needs to be on the ability of users of Wikipedia to find the information they are looking for, not in the "proper term." This is especially important in areas where the final, correct terms have not yet been determined. For example, I entered "computer art" because I was interested in knowing its history. I would never have entered "digital art." I might agree that "digital art" describes the entire issue better, but that doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't have thought of it. I don't think I'm alone, in fact, I would guess that most users would think of "computer art" first. Whatever the final decision, if the term "computer art" were entered, wouldn't the "related" terms appear, even if there were no "computer art" page?
Bradfregger 14:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Computer art may be considered as a 'branche' from the 'Art' tree or trunk. However, the term could, or should, be sub to the more global 'digital art' which should / could be a main branche. Yves Bodson January 25th 2007
The external links section on this article has grown out of control, per WP:NOT a collection of links I propose we remove most of it and replace it with a link to a suitable web directory. Also see Wikipedia:External_links. I see that there have been attempts to remove it before, but I think it's time for another go. H e nrik 08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Link spammers should be removed periodically, at least once a week!!! -- Artsgrie 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday i added two new links which i considered them to be a useful resource for Digital Artists. I will re-add them today. Any objections? --
Sensodyne
21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There are way too many images being used on this article. Most add nothing to the article and only serve to publish them as original works which is contrary to WP:OR and WP:NOT. Many of them should be removed. Adam McCormick ( talk) 03:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The text of the article currently contains: "One reason why the established art community finds it difficult to accept digital art is the erroneous perception of digital prints being endlessly reproducible. Many artists though are erasing the relevant image file after the first print, thus making it a unique artwork."
I don't know if this section belongs in the article or not (particularly without citation) but it strikes me as a philosophical controversy in need of expansion, perhaps in another article altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewilen ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we should cut the extra questionable stuff out. Valueyou ( talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I thank all involved editors for their efforts. If you would be so kind, please concisely summarize the nature of the discussion, and what the differing points of view are. I will then be able to render an informed opinion in a timely manner. Thanks again! — Finn Casey 02:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Those viewpoints are both reasonable and understandable. I believe all involved editors have put commendable energy and effort into this project. I agree with Valueyou that the current page structure is inappropriately cluttered and overly extensive. I recommend that Valueyou enacts the proposed revisions. This will lead to an easy-to-read article that is more encyclopedic. Thanks again for all your efforts! — Finn Casey * * * 22:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Difference of opinion on how the article should proceed, in terms of content offered, and content expansion requested. Please my last comment above for one of the positions. Measles ( talk) 10:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree: It sensible to merge Computer art and Digital Art into the more distinctive Computer-generated art category despite subtile differences. Digital art not necessarily generated on the computer (digitized art) falls under the category of electronic media. Oicumayberight 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone wrote on August 8th, 2006: The article " Digital artist" should also be merged.
Strongly Disagree: It's a bad idea to merge digital artist (skill) and digital art (product.) The product is used by people with no concern for this skill. The skill produces much more than digital art. It would only serve to dilute the significance of both skill and product. Describing a skill has very little to do with describing the product of a skill and the products impact on technology or society. Artists should not be defined by one medium, technology or genre. Keep the artists separate from the art, or you will be helping neither. Oicumayberight 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 'Agree to Strongly Disagree The field of Digital art is an art genre that encompasses artworks created with new media technologies, including computer graphics, computer animation, the Internet, interactive technologies, robotics, and biotechnology's, and relates them into cultural aesthetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolsbymedia ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that people need further examples of work sof digital art in oder to understand its relevance. UCSC Professor Warren Sack is a software designer and media theorist whose work explores theories and designs for online public space and public discussion. His field of expertise is social computing. As a field of research, social computing explores two issues: (A) How can the insights of social, critical, cultural, and media theory be incorporated into and used to critique and evaluate software? and, (B) How can new media be designed to address outstanding social and political issues? Current and past projects include work in news media, Open Source software development, locative media, computer-supported translation, systems for visualizing and facilitating online discussions, and the design and analysis of network-based learning environments.
PROJECTS
This short video provides an overview of several of the following projects. Warren Sack, Conversation Map Warren Sack & Sawad Brooks, Translation Map Warren Sack, "Agonistics: A Language Game" Aphid Stern, Michael Dale, Mark Deckert, Warren Sack, Metavid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolsbymedia ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Given the dispute on this page, I am removing my samples of digital art from this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this page should have any images, you can't have one singular image to represent the whole field of Digital Art, so we either have none or a whole gallery. keith watson
After many months and no replies, I've deleted the pic, it wasn't particularly good and the field is too big and varied to be represnted by this picture. Keith
Hello to all,
As a tech/artist, I am interested in this area of knowledge. I haven't seen much discussion on artists' frustration at software vendors discussed in a venue outside of the normal "technology" framework, but I feel it would be a valid entry either here, or maybe as a stub entry. It falls under the category of artistic process; how software frustration affects process. Involved with this is a look at the training digital artists go through versus training that traditional artists encounter, and whether or not this counts as "suffering", an ingredient that many traditional artists feel is important as an element for true art to be valid.
I am just now beginning my research into this, and I have not posted anywhere else. I do not iintend this as a trivial entry, and I look forward to seeing what comes of it. Thanks, Swatkins 19:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
reply- would you mind clarifying what you mean about "suffering" as ingredient. Digital Artists develop personal and aesthetic relationships within the technological framework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolsbymedia ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Chimeraobscura2002.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 21:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This article has become a dump for promotion. Most of the pictures add little educational value to the article. Tomorrow, I will begin harsh cutting down of all content about individual artists, move lists at Category pages, and remove the gallery. Any objections? *glares at everyone*
In the future, if you wish to add a picture to the page, at least have the decency of expanding the accompanying text to explain why that picture is relevant to the subject.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Why aren't video games and computer games included as a digital art? It could perhaps be on the list of subtypes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikkiprince ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 16 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Krystalina Gonzalez. Peer reviewers:
Gurneet singh01.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There should likely be some mention of NFTs in this article due to their association with Digital Art but the current wording implies NFTs are digital artworks in themselves, which is incorrect. This was recently discussed at /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_most_expensive_artworks_by_living_artists#RfC:_Categorizing_NFT_sales_in_the_list_of_most_expensive_artworks_by_living_artists which came to a consensus that NFTs shouldn't be added to the list of artworks on that page at the current time.
Does this distinction between NFTs and their associated artworks need revisited separately here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaggedHamster ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Fixed now, your contribution helped and now it's clearer for everybody. Also, the 'NFT' itself is only a tool, a way, the way those artworks get auctioned/sold digitally. The "respective" and "associated" wording helps. Thank you! JohnnyCoal ( talk) 12:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This article and Computer Art both need serious revision. I added templates indicating some of the problems, and will try to fix some but it will take time. A major issue is that the article refers to digital art both in the very broad sense of anything visual made on a computer (like in the long paragraph about 2d and 3d images) as well as in the sense of contemporary art, which is a lot more specific. There is also, as noted below, significant overlap between Digital art, Computer art, New media art, Interactive art, Electronic art etc. There is also Category:Digital_art (of which this page is the main page) which has a better list of subcategories than this article - is there a best practice for connecting these? Lijil ( talk) 21:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Eilsiz ka (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
FCsJazzmint,
Yodieonwiki,
Researcher112233.
— Assignment last updated by Toggle78 ( talk) 02:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Greeneryz (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Greeneryz ( talk) 03:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Akụkọ (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Akụkọ ( talk) 19:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I created this page because Visual arts and design, which is linked from the Main Page. Links to it. I just kind if wrote it off the top of my head. There is (was? I did revision) similar material on computer generated art.
I also just added my contribution. VIVE LE WIGDOR!!! -- Keith-Wigdor 18:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I also revised this page (some time ago. There seemed , and still is some confusion between 'commercial' uses and 'artistic' endeavours in Digital Art. Who termed the phrase 'Neographers' I've never heard of it anywhere else? A lot more could be written and it could also be divided up more. The problem is whether you give a very general description or go into more depth. Obviously the more depth there is the more problematic (and critised!) it becomes. I also added some of the links. This area is still woefully inadequate. Again that worries, because once you start, there's no stopping and soon it would become a lifetimes work, to get anywhwhere near a complete picture of the diversity of work that is being created! Still maybe one day... keith watson
PS. I really don't think there should be any reference to music, that's a whole nother area. of course there is Sound Art, but I think the term 'Digital art' encompasses visual work only. what do you think? Would it upset anyone to delete this bit! keith watson
Hi, You're right times have moved on, this whole description is too simplistic and needs a much more academmic approach to defining 'Digital Art'. The basic 'art created by computer (or other digital devises)' is still correct though, its just that the movement has grown as you describe, and much of it is defined now by 'New Media'.
keith watson
Could we consider that 'digital' is equivalent to 'silver' used in photography? Then from there, digital being a state by which an image or a creation wil go through before being definitely transposed onto or into a physical medium such as CRT/LCD photo paper printed with a digita printer, ceramic, glass or whatever the medium. In such a perspective, digital becomes a form of 'sensor' like in a digital camera, whose only purpose is to capture information and pass it on to the next step. Yves Bodson January 25th, 2007
I'm thinking of removing the whole "External links" section, as it's turning into a big link farm, and I don't see any real standard for what it should include, and what's just a self-promotional link. Any objections? Tverbeek 11:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I think its online terrorism to take away links that someone has put here a good reason. Anybody adding links must have a feeling that they are doing so for the good of the site, not necessarily as self promotion. For instance I run Deluxe-arts which still an organisation which used to run deluxe gallery, which was an important gallery for new media/ digitla art in the UK and still an important site for anyone interested in this area. I also see someone has taken a lot of other links out which I believe are VERY important. I don't believe it is up to someone else to decide what they think is or isn't relevant, because it isn't going to be the same view as anyone else.
So if someone adds links, which are relevant they should be left in place, or ask the person who placed them BEFORE you delete it.
When I get time I will be re-adding the links that someone has taken away, because I and many people would consider them relevant.
i can see I'm gonna have to keep an eye on you guys! keith watson
If anyone can find one or two samples of digital art by notable artists to replace current samples, that will be appreciated. I could not find any in Wikipedia images or in commons so far. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, may be you try the MODA Museum guest section. Of course in your opinion these might be not notable digital artists. You are the king at Wikipedia. You decide. Artingrid 13:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am a peaceful human being but nevertheless hate injustice. Yes, you are one editor among thousands but you are the one threatening. Don't worry. I will not talk to you anymore if you do not attack me. Artingrid 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It hasnt been an esay task for me to promote and fight for Digital art or what I consider to be artistic creations generated by a computer. I created MODA Museum of Digital art Beacuse I felt every artist has a right to show their work so everyone can enjoy or hate it. This isn't the case with other digital art museums that are excesively selective and that's fine too but I still think everyone should be consider and respected as an artist if they're serious about their work so there is a space for all digital artists at MODA and that's something we're always be proud of. What Ingrid and Dr Chang have done to unite the digital art community and to promote their work through different projects is an admirable effort and I truly think they deserve everyone's respect, specially if we consider that digital art still finds closed doors in Physical museums and galleries. There is still a lot we can all do to fight for digital art recognition and I don't think it is a good idea to be against each other, we should all be together in this adventure.Mariano Petit de Murat. MODA site: MODA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.138.64.213 ( talk • contribs) .
Facts regarding the decision making about who is reaching notability to be included in Wikipedia: YOU ALONE DECIDED. And your are not a notable artist in your own words. And may be you are not in a position to decide who is a notable artist. Any expertise? In Wikipedia guidelines it is stated that the admin who puts an article to AfD is not the one who decides if it finally will be deleted. This should be decided by another admin who carefully watches the deletion debate and then decides. This "decider" was a 15 year old kid what speaks for itself. And everybody may look up the so-called deletion debate to find out what was really going on. Besides you and the 15 year old there were only 3 more folks who ever saw this debate. And those were folks without any knowledge about art or digital art. Only one of them tried to be constructive. It's absurd. You should be careful that not too many folks find out what happened here. I would love to make this more publically available. The world should know what is going on here! Crazy. THANK GOD YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DECIDE. AND YOUR SO-CALLED DECISION IS OBSCURE AND WORTHLESS. Moreover in this deletion debate you ignored worthy comments because you just didn't like them. Wikipedia is an open-source and states also folks outsite Wikipedia should not be ignored. But I am tired now. Who is Jossi? Only Wikipedia should be interested who he is because he makes Wikipedia indeed look bad. No wonder there are so many bad newspaper reports. Artingrid 10:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
hi, 'Jossi'
Could you clarify who you are? You say: I have no more power than any other editor and I cannot abuse my powers as an admninstrator. You have as many rights as I do with the exception of admin privileges that are basically the ability to protect an article and to temporarily block users that engage in vandalism or that otherwise disrupt Wikipedia.
so are you an official of Wikipedia?
I will be pairing down the long list of external links, for this reason. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Right. Wikipedia is not a web directory. It is a Jossi web directory. It will only keep the links Jossi the admin will allow and that is for sure not the link to cyberart pioneer Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya) because Jossi doesn't like high class competition. For this watch this history of this article. Artingrid 12:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
And btw the MODA is the Museum website of my friend and great artist Mariano Petit de Murat, Mexico City/Mexico who is a Webist. Artingrid 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, you are above notability. Artingrid 09:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I am awfully sorry but what you tell above cannot be left alone. I do not have clients as you call it and I never made an attempt to add an external link to a personal website of a person I represent. I only represent myself. And the link I added is a link to an acknoledged source to digital art in the whole wide web. You may ask Google. But please let us stop this fruitless talk now. Thank you. Artingrid 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
So what? You are mixing things. Artingrid 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
As I said I only represent myself. When I put the link to Dr. Chang's website here it is because "Truly Virtual Web Art Museum" of Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya) is a worldwide acknowledged source for digital art not matter where and what and by whom Dr. Chang's art is sold. Every artist sells art. That is not the point here. But you can start talking to yourself now. My time indeed is too precious to spend my life talking to someone who acts like God at Wikipedia. Artingrid 10:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added another image. It's my own, so there shouldn't be any problems. escapologist File:Exquisite-kate.png 13:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it right to include applied arts such as illustration and design involving digital technologies in this article? I'm not sure if we can make use of separate terms such as Digital Art (designating digital Fine Art) and Digital arts (designating all arts where at some point some digital technology was used). Now the article looks too general to me: It includes on one hand commercial illustrators, photographers, designers whom I would call 'contemporary craftsmen', on the other hand avant-garde artists working on digital media. The latter (e.g. software artists, internet artists) were included in 'Other' and 'See Also' sections although IMO they are supposed to be the main focus of this article.-- spAs 12:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with Spas. This article is confusing and doesn't meet the theme. There should be two articles: "Applied Digital Arts" and "Digital Fine Arts". Artingrid 08:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think, splitting the article that way could also ease the problem of huge number of links that seem to be out of control. Any other suggestions on naming or any arguments against splitting? An alternative way of organization could be similar to the one in Christiane Paul's book "Digital Art". She organized two chapters in her book as follows:
The following articles overlap:
I realize that "digital art" and "computer art" have technically different meanings, but in practice they almost always refer to the same thing, and they're resulting in similar articles. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. They need to be merged into one article, either digital art or computer art or similar. Computer-generated art can be confusing.
Note the existence of these more specific articles:
I agree articles should be merged, if you can do it! Keith Watson 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Moreover: May be it would be better to not show example images.... or let it be samples of the true pioneers.
I've said previously the articles can't be represented by a few images, this is just being vain by the people inserting them. If there are to be images they should be ones which have been recognised as representative of the genre. But this will also cause problems as the most important images would need approval from the artist, or let them do it themselves. It seems most important 'digital artists' don't bother with this site. Keith Watson 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
My definition- Digital Art is an art genre that encompasses artworks created with new media technologies, these may include computer based technologies but can also be representative or generated through any new media format and then aesthetically relates it to popular culture.
Yvesbodson 19:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)==Ease of locating desired information==
The focus here needs to be on the ability of users of Wikipedia to find the information they are looking for, not in the "proper term." This is especially important in areas where the final, correct terms have not yet been determined. For example, I entered "computer art" because I was interested in knowing its history. I would never have entered "digital art." I might agree that "digital art" describes the entire issue better, but that doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't have thought of it. I don't think I'm alone, in fact, I would guess that most users would think of "computer art" first. Whatever the final decision, if the term "computer art" were entered, wouldn't the "related" terms appear, even if there were no "computer art" page?
Bradfregger 14:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Computer art may be considered as a 'branche' from the 'Art' tree or trunk. However, the term could, or should, be sub to the more global 'digital art' which should / could be a main branche. Yves Bodson January 25th 2007
The external links section on this article has grown out of control, per WP:NOT a collection of links I propose we remove most of it and replace it with a link to a suitable web directory. Also see Wikipedia:External_links. I see that there have been attempts to remove it before, but I think it's time for another go. H e nrik 08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Link spammers should be removed periodically, at least once a week!!! -- Artsgrie 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday i added two new links which i considered them to be a useful resource for Digital Artists. I will re-add them today. Any objections? --
Sensodyne
21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There are way too many images being used on this article. Most add nothing to the article and only serve to publish them as original works which is contrary to WP:OR and WP:NOT. Many of them should be removed. Adam McCormick ( talk) 03:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The text of the article currently contains: "One reason why the established art community finds it difficult to accept digital art is the erroneous perception of digital prints being endlessly reproducible. Many artists though are erasing the relevant image file after the first print, thus making it a unique artwork."
I don't know if this section belongs in the article or not (particularly without citation) but it strikes me as a philosophical controversy in need of expansion, perhaps in another article altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewilen ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we should cut the extra questionable stuff out. Valueyou ( talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I thank all involved editors for their efforts. If you would be so kind, please concisely summarize the nature of the discussion, and what the differing points of view are. I will then be able to render an informed opinion in a timely manner. Thanks again! — Finn Casey 02:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Those viewpoints are both reasonable and understandable. I believe all involved editors have put commendable energy and effort into this project. I agree with Valueyou that the current page structure is inappropriately cluttered and overly extensive. I recommend that Valueyou enacts the proposed revisions. This will lead to an easy-to-read article that is more encyclopedic. Thanks again for all your efforts! — Finn Casey * * * 22:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Difference of opinion on how the article should proceed, in terms of content offered, and content expansion requested. Please my last comment above for one of the positions. Measles ( talk) 10:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree: It sensible to merge Computer art and Digital Art into the more distinctive Computer-generated art category despite subtile differences. Digital art not necessarily generated on the computer (digitized art) falls under the category of electronic media. Oicumayberight 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone wrote on August 8th, 2006: The article " Digital artist" should also be merged.
Strongly Disagree: It's a bad idea to merge digital artist (skill) and digital art (product.) The product is used by people with no concern for this skill. The skill produces much more than digital art. It would only serve to dilute the significance of both skill and product. Describing a skill has very little to do with describing the product of a skill and the products impact on technology or society. Artists should not be defined by one medium, technology or genre. Keep the artists separate from the art, or you will be helping neither. Oicumayberight 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 'Agree to Strongly Disagree The field of Digital art is an art genre that encompasses artworks created with new media technologies, including computer graphics, computer animation, the Internet, interactive technologies, robotics, and biotechnology's, and relates them into cultural aesthetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolsbymedia ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that people need further examples of work sof digital art in oder to understand its relevance. UCSC Professor Warren Sack is a software designer and media theorist whose work explores theories and designs for online public space and public discussion. His field of expertise is social computing. As a field of research, social computing explores two issues: (A) How can the insights of social, critical, cultural, and media theory be incorporated into and used to critique and evaluate software? and, (B) How can new media be designed to address outstanding social and political issues? Current and past projects include work in news media, Open Source software development, locative media, computer-supported translation, systems for visualizing and facilitating online discussions, and the design and analysis of network-based learning environments.
PROJECTS
This short video provides an overview of several of the following projects. Warren Sack, Conversation Map Warren Sack & Sawad Brooks, Translation Map Warren Sack, "Agonistics: A Language Game" Aphid Stern, Michael Dale, Mark Deckert, Warren Sack, Metavid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolsbymedia ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Given the dispute on this page, I am removing my samples of digital art from this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this page should have any images, you can't have one singular image to represent the whole field of Digital Art, so we either have none or a whole gallery. keith watson
After many months and no replies, I've deleted the pic, it wasn't particularly good and the field is too big and varied to be represnted by this picture. Keith
Hello to all,
As a tech/artist, I am interested in this area of knowledge. I haven't seen much discussion on artists' frustration at software vendors discussed in a venue outside of the normal "technology" framework, but I feel it would be a valid entry either here, or maybe as a stub entry. It falls under the category of artistic process; how software frustration affects process. Involved with this is a look at the training digital artists go through versus training that traditional artists encounter, and whether or not this counts as "suffering", an ingredient that many traditional artists feel is important as an element for true art to be valid.
I am just now beginning my research into this, and I have not posted anywhere else. I do not iintend this as a trivial entry, and I look forward to seeing what comes of it. Thanks, Swatkins 19:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
reply- would you mind clarifying what you mean about "suffering" as ingredient. Digital Artists develop personal and aesthetic relationships within the technological framework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolsbymedia ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Chimeraobscura2002.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 21:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This article has become a dump for promotion. Most of the pictures add little educational value to the article. Tomorrow, I will begin harsh cutting down of all content about individual artists, move lists at Category pages, and remove the gallery. Any objections? *glares at everyone*
In the future, if you wish to add a picture to the page, at least have the decency of expanding the accompanying text to explain why that picture is relevant to the subject.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Why aren't video games and computer games included as a digital art? It could perhaps be on the list of subtypes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikkiprince ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 16 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Krystalina Gonzalez. Peer reviewers:
Gurneet singh01.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There should likely be some mention of NFTs in this article due to their association with Digital Art but the current wording implies NFTs are digital artworks in themselves, which is incorrect. This was recently discussed at /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_most_expensive_artworks_by_living_artists#RfC:_Categorizing_NFT_sales_in_the_list_of_most_expensive_artworks_by_living_artists which came to a consensus that NFTs shouldn't be added to the list of artworks on that page at the current time.
Does this distinction between NFTs and their associated artworks need revisited separately here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaggedHamster ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Fixed now, your contribution helped and now it's clearer for everybody. Also, the 'NFT' itself is only a tool, a way, the way those artworks get auctioned/sold digitally. The "respective" and "associated" wording helps. Thank you! JohnnyCoal ( talk) 12:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This article and Computer Art both need serious revision. I added templates indicating some of the problems, and will try to fix some but it will take time. A major issue is that the article refers to digital art both in the very broad sense of anything visual made on a computer (like in the long paragraph about 2d and 3d images) as well as in the sense of contemporary art, which is a lot more specific. There is also, as noted below, significant overlap between Digital art, Computer art, New media art, Interactive art, Electronic art etc. There is also Category:Digital_art (of which this page is the main page) which has a better list of subcategories than this article - is there a best practice for connecting these? Lijil ( talk) 21:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Eilsiz ka (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
FCsJazzmint,
Yodieonwiki,
Researcher112233.
— Assignment last updated by Toggle78 ( talk) 02:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Greeneryz (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Greeneryz ( talk) 03:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Akụkọ (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Akụkọ ( talk) 19:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)